- Thinking About It by Zee Feed
- Posts
- Can we fight Woodside?
On Wednesday, the new Environment Minister Murray Watt approved an extension to Woodside’s North West Shelf gas project (which is off the coast of WA, from the Burrup peninsula in the Pilbara region). I won’t lie, the news was a real gut punch. I cried.
The two most common questions I’ve received from you all have been some variation of:
How was this allowed to be approved?
Is there anything that can be done to reverse it?
The secret third question was “How the fuck do these people sleep at night?” but I could never answer this, because I have no idea.
Let’s get to the answers.
Necessary details: The North West Shelf gas processing plant extracts natural gas from under the ocean, and processes it onshore at the Karratha gas plant. It was originally set to close in 2030. In 2018 Woodside submitted the application to extend the operating life of the plant to 2070. Because this extension would be a “controlled action” (one that will have a significant impact) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), it had to first be assessed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). It means the EPA must first assess the application against the relevant environmental legislations (the EPBC Act and WA’s Environmental Protection Act 1986).
In 2022, the chair of the EPA (at the time, Professor Matthew Tonts) issued the final report on that assessment process. It recommended the extension be approved with caveats. Those caveats are primarily imposing limits on carbon emissions, air pollution, marine quality and reporting requirements. You can read the full recommendation here.
Recommendation is the key word. For controlled actions, after the EPA assessment the Environment Minister has the final say as they have veto power – they can go against the EPA’s advice if they want to, and there are a variety of reasons within the relevant laws they can use as justification for making that decision.
Numbers of the North West Shelf: This article by Ben Eltham is an incredibly comprehensive look at the politics of Murray Watt’s decision to approve this extension for Woodside – I highly recommend you read it. Eltham pulled together all the numbers which are important to know:
According to modelling by the Australia Institute, the extension will contribute a further 4.3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions;
Woodside paid $325 million in royalties to the government for gas it extracted from the North West Shelf in 2023 (Woodside doesn’t own the gas, we do! It is leasing the land, and taking our natural resource to sell overseas for their own benefit);
Woodside paid $114 million in Petroleum Resource Rent tax on the North West Shelf;
It provides less than 1000 jobs.
Why was the Minister allowed to approve it?
In Watt’s statement (which you can read here) he says: “In making my proposed decision I was required to consider:
the potential impacts of extending the life of the plant on the national heritage values of nearby ancient rock art, and
economic and social matters concerning the proposed development.
Based on the evidence before me and the Department’s recommendations, my proposed decision is subject to strict conditions.”
Those “strict” conditions are not very strict at all, and in my opinion Watt is using them as a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card. The conditions require Woodside to have plans in place to protect the Murujuga rock art, which is already suffering clear damage due to the North West Shelf operations, as well as emissions and air pollution limits as recommended by the EPA.
But there is no information about what happens if Woodside exceeds the limits or fails to comply with its own protection plans. Will operations be stopped? Will they have to pay fines? The approval process is still ongoing but there doesn’t appear to be any real consequences for what could be the total destruction of invaluable rock art, and irredeemable environmental damage. Once destroyed, these things can’t be put back to the way they were before.
You’ll notice that there is also no mention in Watt’s statement about whether he considered emissions and Australia’s net zero targets. Unbelievably, that’s because he doesn’t legally have to consider that at all. The reason is twofold, 1) the government does not account for the emissions from Australian coal and gas burnt in other countries (and almost all of this gas is going to be exported); and 2) the EPBC Act takes a very narrow view of carbon emissions.
Would the changes to the EPBC Act last year have stopped this?
Yes, changes to the EPBC Act are absolutely required and would have stopped this approval. The Act was passed in 1999, so it’s already 25 years old… and outdated. In its current form, the Act is focused on nature protection and conservation from what you might consider “direct” impacts. For example, pollution from a processing plant going into the ocean or clearing land that is the habitat for an endangered species. There isn’t really a mechanism in the Act for the Minister (or the EPA, for that matter) to reject a proposal because of its climate impact, unless those emissions directly affect something like a protected species. The climate crisis as we understand it now is not really a factor in the legislation.
People have been trying for years to get a “climate trigger” included in the EPBC Act for years – an ability to automatically refer to the Minister any project that would put Australia over our emissions target, and have greenhouse gas emissions included as a standalone reason to reject. This 2020 inquiry submission by the Environmental Defenders Office is an example of what that could look like.
Reforming the EPBC Act was one of Labor’s key promises at the 2022 election. It delayed acting until last year, and when the Greens asked them to include a climate trigger, Labor pushed back. WA Premier Roger Cook lobbied the government to not work with the Greens, and bears significant responsibility for the failure of these reforms altogether. The WA government is, of course, entirely captured by the mining industry. Even worse, in the last week of government Labor and the Coalition teamed up to pass a different amendment that weakened the EPBC Act (related to the Tassie salmon farms).
Don’t let Watts or the EPA use these excuses to get off the hook though! The 50,000 year old Murujuga rock art is an artefact of national significance and Watt absolutely could have vetoed the project to protect it.
Can it be stopped, mitigated, reversed? What can we do?
This isn’t quite a done deal yet. Woodside has 10 days (from the date of the announcement) to respond to the conditions the Minister has placed on the extension. But as I said, the conditions are not strict and you can tell Woodside are fine with them by the response from CEO Meg “Fuck Young People” O’Neill, who said: "We've got a 10-day window to work with the department to understand the conditions and we look forward to executing that work as quickly as possible.”
Mardudhunera woman and activist Raelene Cooper has submitted a legal challenge in the Federal Court. She has previously filed a similar challenge against another Woodside site, the Scarborough gas field, and was temporarily successful in halting seismic blasting there. But after making some procedural changes, Woodside was once again approved to start blasting again just a few months later. Cooper is currently fundraising for her legal challenge here.
Labor has promised to deliver a reformed EPBC Act, including a federal Environmental Protection Authority, in this term of government. The details of those reforms are very important, securing a climate trigger (as discussed above) is imperative. It might not apply retroactively to previously approved projects, like the North West Shelf, but Woodside is also planning to expand to a nearby area called the Browse gas field in the near future. North West Shelf isn’t the singular project to fight against.
While you should not be discouraged from calling or writing to your federal member, I have to be frank: we had the most leverage approximately one month ago.
If you read my election analysis this week, you’ll know one weak spot for Labor is in the Senate. They cannot pass legislation without the support of either the Greens or the Coalition. So think about lobbying all the senators who represent you. There are Labor senators in every state and territory – flat out tell them that you want them to work with the Greens, that you expect a climate trigger in any new legislation, and that working with the Coalition on environmental or climate legislation would be a betrayal. Unfortunately, you can’t really make any threats about not voting for them – the next election is not for three years, so they don’t give a shit.
The one exception could be new Labor MPs, who will be in the “listening and learning” phase with their constituents. If you are represented by a new Labor MP in the House of Reps (hello, Melbourne electorate subscribers!) try to get an appointment to speak to them (helpful if you can get a group of people together), or find out when their next “meet the public” is happening. Go and tell them! Call their office! Be noisy!
Also, don’t leave the EPA out of your activity! Each state EPA is independent of the government, however the individual members and chairpersons are appointed by the relevant state government. In 2019, chair of the WA EPA, Tom Hatton said then-Premier Mark McGowan ordered him to drop the tougher emissions guidelines – and he did. The EPA might sit independently of the government, but they meet with lobbyists and consult with fossil fuel giants too. You can make submissions to the projects currently open to public consultation (here is the link for the WA EPA), and contact the one in your state to tell them what you think.
And my final and evergreen piece of advice is to get involved with climate action groups in your area, including direct action groups if you have the appetite for that. Disrupt Burrup Hub has been targeting Woodside heavily – you can find out more about them here.
Smart stuff on the Internet 💭
All the stuff I found on the web that made me think, smile, or have an ‘aha!’ moment. Spend your Sunday reading them – you'll be better off for it:
Who Gets A Book Deal? Luke Bateman’s Success Puts Publishing Inequality In The Spotlight on Pedestrian.TV
“While Bateman has talked about wanting to use his platform to uplift others, Melanie says she hasn’t seen action yet. ‘When he first arrived on the scene, I suggested three or four children’s books in fantasy that he could read that were written by Aboriginal people, and he’s not read any of them yet. He’s not made a video about it. So have I seen him use his platform for good yet? No, I haven’t’.”
TINY LIES: My $55 adventure in internet factchecking spiky Chinese benches on The Internet Reviewed YouTube
This was a fascinating journey into a very niche, borderline irrelevant lie. “I recently became obsessed with trying to work out whether China really does have coin-operated park benches that stab you in the butt when your sitting time is up. This 'fact' was all over the internet, and had made its way into the NY Times, The Guardian, NPR, an academic journal, and a professor's book. This fixation cost me $55, several days, and a significant chunk of my sanity.”
2025 Election Analysis: Retreat to the Centre on Zee Feed!
“A lot has been written about how News Corp has been much less influential in the 2020s. While I understand that argument, I don’t totally agree. They might have less sway over voters, but they have clearly influenced the Labor party itself. The current iteration of the Labor party seems so badly traumatised by the beating News Corp has given it over the past two decades (the 2019 election in particular) that it’s decided to mould itself into a party more palatable to the Murdoch media. It has become less ambitious and shifted to the right. The strategy makes perfect sense if your goal is simply to stay in power. “